Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners accused have approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR No.230/2011 registered at the Police Station Lunkaransar, District Bikaner for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC.
(2.) Succinctly stated the facts relevant and essential for the disposal of this petition are noted here-in-below:- The respondent complainant Smt. Jamna Devi submitted a complaint in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Lunkaransar alleging inter alia that she and the petitioners are siblings. Her sister Smt. Mohni had expired and Pawan and Taruna are legal heirs of Smt. Mohini. As per the complainant, their mother Smt. Magi Devi died intestate while leaving behind a significant chunk of land in the village Surnana, Tehsil Lunkaransar in which all the legal heirs have an equal share. The complainant claimed that the accused persons conspired together with the fraudulent intention of depriving the complainant, Taruna and Pawan of their lawful share in the property and got prepared a false and fabricated succession certificate on 20.09.1990 mentioning therein that Smt. Magi Devi did not leave behind any legal heir except the accused petitioners and in this fraudulent manner, they got the mutation of the entire chunk of land owned by Magi Devi carried out in their own names. The said complaint submitted by Smt. Magi Devi was forwarded to the Police Station Lunkaransar for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. where FIR No.230/2011 came to be registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the above FIR.
(3.) The petitioners have averred that before lodging the FIR, the complainant submitted an appeal under Section 75 of the Land Revenue Act before the SDO, Lunkaransar on 19.04.2011 for cancellation of the disputed mutation entry made in favour of the petitioners and thereafter, she has lodged the instant belated FIR with the very same allegations against the petitioners. When the matter was taken up on 22.10.2013, this Court was apprised that the petitioners are ready to part with 1/4th share of the land in favour of the complainant as per her entitlement. However, the counsel to accept the complainant, after taking instructions from his client, refused to accept the said suggestion stating that the complainant was not ready for the fair offer made by the accused. Thereupon, this Court expressed displeasure about the conduct of the respondent No.2 observing that she was not acting in a bonafide manner.;